The Big Twelve presents a big problem. Every one of those programs has history. For example, it would be advantageous to keep the Big 8 together. However, if that is done, there is not enough room for Texas, Texas A&M and Arkansas, which would presumably want to join after leaving the SEC. No member would want to get demoted.

Figuring out ten-team conferences for the mid majors is an even bigger undertaking.

Anyway, in a ten-team conference, there would be a full round robin for basketball (18 games). The divisions would be nonexistant because they would have no structural meaning. For football, each team would play the four other teams in its division and four of five from the other division (eight games). Each team would always play the same two assigned teams from the other division and two of the other three teams on a six year rotation.

Example: Syracuse would play interdivision rivals Miami and West Virginia every year. Tennessee would play Alabama and Mississippi every year. Michigan would play Minnesota and Wisconsin every year. Maryland would play North Carolina State and Georgia Tech every year.

I was wrong. the information that I had didn't show that South Carolina and Ole Miss played a home and home in 98/99.

As for "If they are good enough, they will meet in the conference championship."....maybe, maybe not. Oklahoma and Colorado won their respective divisions in the Big XII. Could Oklahoma have still won the title if they had to face Kansas State? Could Colorado have won the North Division if they had to face Texas or Oklahoma State? We'll never know because they didn't play.

For all intents and purposes....12 team conferences are really two 6 team conferences that just happen to play a few inter-league games during the season.

And regarding the unfairness of some teams having to play a title game and some not playing one....that was their choice. Why should the ACC or Big East have to "legitimize" their champion simply because the SEC, Big XII, and MAC do it? If the conference is set up where all the teams in that conference play..then the champion is already decided...it's the team with the best conference record. If two teams have the same record...then it's decided head to head. And it's a more legitmate champion because the champ didn't escape having to play anybody.

If you have so many members that you can't play each team and determine a champion...then you need a title game. Be it 10, 11, or 12 members. Just don't cry to the 9 or less member conferences about having to play an extra game.

Turtlepower, I agree with your 10 team conference plan. The Big 12 is actually an easy solution. Move each of the 12 members back to thier original conferences and fill in with teams wanting to move to a BCS conference.

The four Texas teams would move back to the Southwestern Conference. Bring back SMU, TCU, and one Houston team (UH or Rice) and Arkansas. Add Tulane and Memphis to bring the conference to 10.

The orginial Big 8 members could add Colorado State and Louisville to bring the conference to 10.

I definitely see your point, and I've always agreed that the conferences with title games can't really complain, because it as their idea and they are in the minority. I guess it just doesn't bother me personally that not everyone plays everyone else. That's been the case in the Big 10 and Pac 10 forever, and in the SEC for a while as well. Good point about OK not playing K State, but as long as one conference team like Iowa State can schedule FSU and Iowa OOC, while K State can schedule one tough game (USC, probably not tough when originally scheduled) and several patsies OOC, the injustice of missing one tough game in-conference seem minor to me. But two wrongs don't make a right, so . . . I don't know. If the conferences would force members to schedule similar OOC games (apart from OOC rivalry games), then I'd come more to your way of thinking. But for now, missing one conference game seems like one of many minor glitches that ought to be addressed, and it's easier to live with (at least for me) than some other problems in NCAAF.

I guess if everyone moved to 9 members that problem might be solved, but that seems even less likely than everyone moving to 12. That might be something to fiddle with on the dream forum. Every conference has one or two black sheep. It might be more plausible than it seems. That might fit with the proposed solution to the Big 12 problem in the realignment scenario above. Some of the old SWC teams have recovered enough to make a new SWC an interesting idea, though that seems incredibly unlikely unless the Texas teams are forced to revive the conference because of events beyond thier control.

turtlepower,

Interesting post. The ACC works out pretty nicely, since USC seems like the only member the conference would be willing to bring in. Putting Pitt in the BE south really balances things, and the PSU and ND games could be fixed on the schedule for them to make everyone happy (I guess PSU would probably fix a game w/ West Va and/or Rutgers, and have a rolling engagement with the others).

lash,

I like your suggestion (given all teams going to 10) of reviving the SWC. Texas Tech is an improving program w/in the Big 12, and TCU is really stepping up, probably the best of the non-BCS teams. If SMU would improve, you'd probably have all you'd need for the old SWC to reform. That might please lots of Texas folks, but they'd probably take a financial hit. My guess is the Big 12 makes them more money, and they are one of it's feature teams. But the 9th and 10th members would have to be sub-par. My only suggestions are Houston (at least they're an historic member), UTEP, or North Texas. N Texas plays decent football lately but has attendance problems, so UTEP might be the best option.

I think Colorado State is a natural addition to the old Big 8, and I'd suggest bringing in Air Force instead of Louisville. That would lead the MWC and WAC to cooperate in forming their own 10 member conference. Depending on how things shake out, Louisville could find a home as a dominant team in a midwesterm mid-major conference. I think C-USA would split into midwestern and southern conferences, with Cincy and Louisville in the north, possibly bringing in the cream of the MAC if too many MAC teams sink to IAA. The southern conference would probably include Tulane, So Miss, ECU, USF, and possibly outliers like La Tech. So, I suggest including these conferences in turtlepower's scenario (still haven't pinned down the remaining mid major conferences):

As best that I can figure, no one seems to think that the new rules will cause many schools to drop down to 1AA. :) I thought that Title IX was hurting schools more than it apparently is. :-[

Some like the 8 conference, 12 teams format, but as many hate it. Therefore, I won't expect to see much expansion unless the financial situation changes.

Most prefer the 8 team playoff to the 16 team. My guess is that a 4 team, go slow approach or an 8 team format will be adopted someday. But I am NOT holding my breath.

Everyone wants more balance on scheduling, but noone likes any of the ideas to force it. Human nature, being what it is, will keep some schools scheduling soft unit they have an incentive to change. Perhaps we need a "bell the cat" thread.

Non playoff bowls could serve as the FB NIT. The trick would be in getting the Magnolia/Southern IVY conference started. Your top teams go the the playoff, and the rest go to the minor bowls. The question is, how many teams would want to join a conference with an RPI so low that its champ would not qualify for the playoff?

If you are talking about realigning the BCS conferences, there is no way to do that without adding teams. Seven niine-team conferences would require adding only one team but a new conference. Ten team conferences would require the addition of eight teams. Twelve team conferences would require ten more BCS teams.

The only solution is for each conference to decide how many teams it wants. There could be some 12-team, some 10-team and a 9-team conference. I would not want to see a conference with less than nine teams.

My preference would be to see how many survice the cut, and reorganize by committee into nine or ten team conferences if possible. Then have a playoff of sixteen teams. Sixteen minus the number of conferences = the number of at-large teams. Use the largest of the present bowls...Sun, Citrus, Peach, Liberty, Outback, Independence, Holiday, Las Vegas and Insight for the first round; Alamo, Cotton, Gator and Fiesta for the second round; Orange and Sugar for the semi-finals and the Rose for the finals. It would keep the older and larger bowls happy because they should be getting a good matchup. Additional bowls might be continued for at least the best in each conference not in the playoffs (sort of an NIT for football).

This would allay the fears of the non-BCS members and surpass in interest the Road to the Final Four of basketball. Plus every team has a legitimate shot at a national title.

JFin,
You comments on adding teams is similar to an idea I got from the Ivy thread. Some of the teams mentioned for a western division of Southern Ivy are ex SWC members. The old SWC had 4 good teams and 5 'mid-majors'. If you brought back the SWC and added Tulane, So. Miss and Memphis, you would have a good conference deserving a BCS/playoff berth. The Big 8 could take BYU and raid the MWC to fill in. Cin would go to the BE and UL would land somewhere.(SEC?)

There are variations on that theme. If some of the old SWC teams are left out, it is ok by me. Also, what is left of the MAC and SBC after 2005 will still need to prove themselves IMHO. Let them settle for an at large.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum